posted 22. October 201103:07 AM
It was just hilarious, but I doubt Juan felt that way. He was queried on his comment on Fox news about "getting nervous on a plane, when he sees people in Muslim garb".

Piers proceeded to tell him, that he would not have made that statement, were he in Juan's position at the time he made that comment, because it was offensive and could be taken as racist.

Piers even went as far as to tell him that NPR, where Juan was then working, must have had a low standard, because if Piers himself was to make the same comments that Juan did on Fox news, then he was pretty confident that CNN would fire him.

Piers then made an analogy, wherein he equated Juan's claim to a scenario whereby a Muslim fellow took a crime incident that an African-American was involved in, and then went out and said, "when I'm near African-Americans, I get nervous"; Piers pressed Juan on how he would take that comment.

At that point Juan just started frantically rambling on to save face, and tried to make a distinction between his comment and the scenario Piers presented for him, visibly trying to make sense in defending his comment, but not doing a good job of it. He was fumbling so much so, that he ended up spilling the drink in a cup near him, all over the desk between him and Piers.

One could tell that Juan was embarrassed at the moment. Piers sensing that the guy was humiliated, decided to cut the scene short and go on a break. Just hilarious. Anyone who hasn't seen it, just have to for him/herself, because just talking about it, doesn't do it justice. Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

An article in the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America criticized Jasser's lack of credentials and his "right-wing rhetoric." On the contrary, self-described conservative[25] Daniel Pipes has praised Jasser as truly moderate and whose activities shows up the falsehood of phony moderates.[26]

posted 22. October 201103:37 AM
Brada, I wish I had it, you know, like on Youtube or something. Sadly, I couldn't find any. But anyway, I know I haven't done the event justice. You have to have seen it, to really see how funny the situation was. I kinda felt embarrassed for him in the segment, because I could see it in his eyes, that he was embarrassed too, with a smirk (but the embarrassed look) on his face.
Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

posted 22. October 201102:25 PM
Thanks Explorer while I could access the link they chopped it off before the question could be asked and answered I smell censorship if anyone else could view the link please testify.
Posts: 6258 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |

''It was just hilarious, but I doubt Juan felt that way. He was queried on his comment on Fox news about "getting nervous on a plane, when he sees people in Muslim garb".

Other than the fact Juan Williams made the politically incorrect comment on television, that is his truth--and a lot of others around the world see it that way.

''Piers then made an analogy, wherein he equated Juan's claim to a scenario whereby a Muslim fellow took a crime incident that an African-American was involved in, and then went out and said, "when I'm near African-Americans, I get nervous"; Piers pressed Juan on how he would take that comment.''

...yet Jessie Jackson made a similar comment a few years ago according to the local news article that he gets nervous and will cross the street if he sees a few African Americans youths standing on a corner. I believe Jackson was referring to Washington D.C..

And it should be all too obvious by now the phrase ''when I'm near African- Americans'' isn't the issue. The issue is *what * context is at hand. Are these African-Americans standing around a church on a Sunday afternoon holding Bibles in their hands or are they the ones standing outside one of the Arab hole-in-the-wall stores with the hoods pulled down over their heads in the twilight hours in a challenged area. That's the difference to me.

So when my wife asks me to play her numbers and for me to go to that area mentioned because it's closer I say to her I'd rather not because I don't feel like shoving my pistol down in my trousers. So it's better to go to another location in the area that's more accessible.

So whose feelings are disturbed when a perceived truth is spoken. Not mine. And I'm sure there are areas in my city that I wouldn't want to go to because some white boys can be tough too.

Juan Williams was obviously trying to score some points with O'reilly when he made the comment. But I do believe he felt what he said and at the same time he was suggesting he was in conflict with himself for feeling that way.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |

Other than the fact Juan Williams made the politically incorrect comment on television, that is his truth--and a lot of others around the world see it that way.

Juan Williams realized that his comments were indefensible, that is the point I'm making, and you could see this in the video (assuming you watched it) as he struggled to make the comment appear logical, where he acknowledged that many of the so-called 9/11 hijackers actually wore 'westernized' clothing and shaven. This punches a hole in Williams' fictitious fear of people in "Muslim garb", since a likely-terrorist would not want to draw attention to himself by making it a point to "look Muslim" presumably by wearing "Muslim garb".

Who are "a lot of others around the globe" you are speaking of, other than racist Europeans, and possibly Israelis?

quote:...yet Jessie Jackson made a similar comment a few years ago according to the local news article that he gets nervous and will cross the street if he sees a few African Americans youths standing on a corner. I believe Jackson was referring to Washington D.C..

Jessie's comment could just as well be racist, but he probably got a pass on this by the media because he is black.
Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

''Juan Williams realized that his comments were indefensible, that is the point I'm making, and you could see this in the video (assuming you watched it) as he struggled to make the comment appear logical, where he acknowledged that many of the so-called 9/11 hijackers actually wore 'westernized' clothing and shaven. This punches a hole in Williams' fictitious fear of people in "Muslim garb", since a likely-terrorist would not want to draw attention to himself by making it a point to "look Muslim" presumably by wearing "Muslim garb".

That part you referenced isn't in the video. However, up until the shutoff point Juan Williams made it known he was uncomfortable with his assessment but that he did feel that way. So up until the shutoff point I saw nothing to disagree with other than a politically incorrect statement made on the nation's airwaves a few months ago.

Now I believe you have a valid point on the Muslim garb'' that potential hijackers wouldn't want to draw attention to themselves by wearing Muslim Garb. This is where I think Williams was making a points move to O'reilly by using that term. That said, I didn't see the initial air date from a year ago but snippets later that evening. But I do know this, the few times I've heard williams on Fox News he 'seems' to be a dissenting voice on that channel on some issues. He and Bill O'reilly got into a raised voice interview about a year ago. So did Rivera (Geraldo) who actually was shouting at O'reilly, who responded in kind.

''Who are "a lot of others around the globe" you are speaking of, other than racist Europeans, and possibly Israelis?''

I said others around the globe; this will include African-Americans, continental Africans, Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, and all the rest, who may well see it that way and who do fly for a variety of reasons. Juan evidently feels other people see it the same way because he said as much in the Morgan interview when he said other people have spoken to him about it.

And yes, Europeans, some who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, a lot of Israelis, and undoubtedly Americans, will be at the *top* of the list to make those statements since they may well know why the Arabs do attack planes with people in them.

Concerning Jackson: Blacks against Blacks in a racial sense? I'm lost on this one. Help me out.

Finally, while I don't like to invoke a person's religious affiliation I will in this case. Morgan should excuse himself from further judgmental calls because he's a Christian and doesn't seem to be aware of the illogical inconsistencies in a moral and ethical sense and how it relates to himself and his religion.(See interview with Jessie Ventura, former Minnesota governor from a few months ago for reference.)
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |

That part you referenced isn't in the video. However, up until the shutoff point Juan Williams made it known he was uncomfortable with his assessment but that he did feel that way. So up until the shutoff point I saw nothing to disagree with other than a politically incorrect statement made on the nation's airwaves a few months ago.

I'm sure Williams 'garb' comment, as any other irrationality out there, will appeal to elements of the most reactionary segments of society. Such adulation however, had proven to be less than useless in rescuing him in this interview. A total fiasco of an appearance.

Juan wasn't able to effectively articulate nor coherently defend his comment, and the spilling of the water became emblematic of this.

The reason is simple: his comment is indefensible, and so, the guy's response came off as awkward for even someone like Juan, who should be more than comfortable--after so many years of experience in the TV business--to articulate his message in front of TV cameras. That he wasn't able to pull that off in this interview, is revealing.

In other words, Grumman liking Juan's idiotic 'garb' comment, had not done him any favors in handling himself in this interview.

quote:Now I believe you have a valid point on the Muslim garb'' that potential hijackers wouldn't want to draw attention to themselves by wearing Muslim Garb.

You see, you haven't been listening. This is the point Juan HIMSELF was forced to make, when Morgan pressed him. He in effect, shot his rash and ignorant comments down by acknowledging this fact.

quote:This is where I think Williams was making a points move to O'reilly by using that term.

And he paid a price for it, by getting fired from NPR. But I thought this interview was more damaging than that. He came out of it looking like a rambling and fumbling clown instead of a seasoned TV personality.

quote:I said others around the globe; this will include African-Americans, continental Africans, Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, and all the rest, who may well see it that way and who do fly for a variety of reasons.

Care to substantiate this with hard-data? You ought to know how it is around here; you don't get away with making shallow opinionated comments, you need to supply hard data and I don't mean hearsay from one or two individuals you personally know living in the 'west'.

quote:Concerning Jackson: Blacks against Blacks in a racial sense? I'm lost on this one. Help me out.

If someone of a different "color" or ethnic association said what Jackson had said, it is more than probable that that person would have easily been branded as a racist by the media. I can't make it any more clearer than that, if you still don't get it hereafter.
Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

Morgan should excuse himself from further judgmental calls because he's a Christian and doesn't seem to be aware of the illogical inconsistencies in a moral and ethical sense and how it relates to himself and his religion.

You sound like Christine O'Donnell, crying about an interview (again on Morgan Tonight) that presses her on the very thing that she herself raised in her book. Morgan did nothing extraordinary here. He simply questioned Juan on the comments that he made, and that he scheduled the interview to defend.

Juan himself would not dare cry about Morgan to deflect from his own abysmal performance, and so you crying a river for him makes even less sense.
Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

posted 27. October 201105:45 PM''You see, you haven't been listening. This is the point Juan HIMSELF was forced to make, when Morgan pressed him. He in effect, shot his rash and ignorant comments down by acknowledging this fact.''

Juan Williams made the comment. Then said he didn't fell comfortable about it. Yet he spoke the truth from his perspective. Other than being a television personality and making a politically incorrect comment, what's wrong him taking a position he did, from both angles?

''And he paid a price for it, by getting fired from NPR. But I thought this interview was more damaging than that. He came out of it looking like a rambling and fumbling clown instead of a seasoned TV personality.''Looks to me like you can't handle Williams may be a conservative of sorts, plus being African-American in holding that position (if he does).

Do you agree with NPR firing him? If you do, then do you agree NPR has a right, as a publicly funded entity, not the voluntary donations part, to take it upon themselves to say, paraphrasing, ''Our views are opposed to Juan's therefore we can terminate his services.''?

''Care to substantiate this with hard-data? You ought to know how it is around here; you don't get away with making shallow opinionated comments, you need to supply hard data and I don't mean hearsay from one or two individuals you personally know living in the 'west'.''

First you ask me to 'substantiate,' then, as a reference, in the very next sentence, you use 'opinionated comments.' How can I substantiate an opinion as hard-data? Yet I suspected before I posted I should have told you exactly what I meant instead of relying on your assumptive comprehension. My bag on that. You might want to remind yourself circumstantial and anecdotal evidence can convict people in a court of law.

And you seem to be suggesting that out of tens of thousands of people around the globe who fly on occasion have to be asked specifically by scientists or whomever is doing the probing, to make a statement that will be valid in a conversation that doesn't even call for a scientific evaluation? Is this your position?

''If someone of a different "color" or ethnic association said what Jackson had said, it is more than probable that that person would have easily been branded as a racist by the media. I can't make it any more clearer than that, if you still don't get it hereafter.''

Jackson is Black. The people he referred to are black. So how do your ''others'' fit here? How is your now anecdotal position structurally different than mine? Racist in this case isn't applicable. Prejudice fits much better. Williams' error was in saying it on public airwaves thereby rendering himself politically incorrect.

''He simply questioned Juan on the comments that he made, and that he scheduled the interview to defend. Juan himself would not dare cry about Morgan to deflect from his own abysmal performance, and so you crying a river for him makes even less sense.''

I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying given your very limited half link of information. Yet I can still operate on the assumption that what you say as it regards Juan, later in the interview, being *very uncomfortable* when pressed by Morgan to explain his ' garb' position, as something that actually happened to the 'degree' you state it to be. Even so, it would only serve to say what Juan says at the top of the interview that he is uncomfortable on a plane with a certain type of garb , meaning Muslims. Even if there is no garb and he still feels uncomfortable then that is his position of truth at the time regardless if he stumbled badly.

Again, Juan's mistake was articulating his feelings on a public forum via the televised airwaves. That's the only mistake he made--not the substance of his comments.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Grumman:Juan Williams made the comment. Then said he didn't fell comfortable about it. Yet he spoke the truth from his perspective. Other than being a television personality and making a politically incorrect comment, what's wrong him taking a position he did, from both angles?

That he couldn't defend it! Conceding the above-mentioned point makes a lie out of his pussified concern of being around people in "Muslim garb".

quote:Looks to me like you can't handle Williams may be a conservative of sorts, plus being African-American in holding that position (if he does).

Let me get this. Williams comes out of the interview stupid and clumsy, and so you decide that it's best to first blame the interviewer, aka Piers, and now me. How classic of you.

It's clear that you haven't really seen this interview in its entirety.

quote:Do you agree with NPR firing him? If you do, then do you agree NPR has a right, as a publicly funded entity, not the voluntary donations part, to take it upon themselves to say, paraphrasing, ''Our views are opposed to Juan's therefore we can terminate his services.''?

It's not for me to agree with. It's the only logical conclusion, because his comment was racist and he could not defend it. This interview proved that. Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

''Care to substantiate this with hard-data? You ought to know how it is around here; you don't get away with making shallow opinionated comments, you need to supply hard data and I don't mean hearsay from one or two individuals you personally know living in the 'west'.''

First you ask me to 'substantiate,' then, as a reference, in the very next sentence, you use 'opinionated comments.' How can I substantiate an opinion as hard-data?

Just bad reading on your part. The hard-data bit was an inescapable expectation of your corroboration. The bit on the "opinionated comments" relates to the general rule of thumb in ES discussion.

quote:And you seem to be suggesting that out of tens of thousands of people around the globe who fly on occasion have to be asked specifically by scientists or whomever is doing the probing, to make a statement that will be valid in a conversation that doesn't even call for a scientific evaluation? Is this your position?

Your comment requires statistical tangibility. You implicated a large chunk of the world as espousing the viewpoint you ascribed to them. You are either telepathic, that you speak for people across the globe without speaking to them, or you based your comment on concrete data. Which is it?
Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

Yet I can still operate on the assumption that what you say as it regards Juan, later in the interview, being *very uncomfortable* when pressed by Morgan to explain his ' garb' position, as something that actually happened to the 'degree' you state it to be.

Bingo! By George, I think he finally got it.

quote: Even if there is no garb and he still feels uncomfortable then that is his position of truth at the time regardless if he stumbled badly.

If I were Juan, I'd hope that what you just said isn't true. If it is, it says Juan is not a very bright person, for him to not have made the connection to terrorists generally trying to "blend in", rather than making a point to "stick out". No matter how many excuses you make for Juan, he doesn't come out looking good here.

quote: Again, Juan's mistake was articulating his feelings on a public forum via the televised airwaves. That's the only mistake he made--not the substance of his comments.

What you just said, is grounds for any TV news network to fire Juan. He's supposed to be a seasoned TV personality. Excuses aside, Juan made his "mistake", because he was put in an awkward position of rationalizing an indefensible comment. Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

''Let me get this. Williams comes out of the interview stupid and clumsy, and so you decide that it's best to first blame the interviewer, aka Piers, and now me. How classic of you.

It's clear that you haven't really seen this interview in its entirety.''

Yes, it is quite clear, going on a couple of posts now, that I did in fact tell you I haven't seen the entire interview; now you're making a secret of it, that is, you're explaining how you see it and basing it on ''my not seeing the entire interview. Yeah buddy, right on time ain't you.

On Firing Williams

''It's not for me to agree with. It's the only logical conclusion, because his comment was racist and he could not defend it. This interview proved that.'

No it isn't the only logical conclusion. What's illogical is your position that Juan can be fired from a publically funded outfit based on a prejudicial and inappropriate comment he made on national television and all done within a few days or less. I see I failed yet again in not highlighting something for you, namely ''publically funded''. Patience my man I'll get the hang of it the more I talk to you; I should have gotten the hang of it by now after a couple of years with you, but...

''Just bad reading on your part. The hard-data bit was an inescapable expectation of your corroboration. The bit on the "opinionated comments" relates to the general rule of thumb in ES discussion''.

Anecdotal comments require no corroboration from a scientific standpoint; that's why it's anecdotal; people make comments. Opinionated comments require what? An explanation for an opinion? Really. If the opinion is stated as such wherein lies the need to explain it since it's already been stated as such?

''Your comment requires statistical tangibility.''

Still trying to disarm anecdotal aren't you.

''You implicated a large chunk of the world as espousing the viewpoint you ascribed to them.''

No, not a large chunk, just the tens of thousands who fly and some of them will say what Juan did. You should be reminded that anecdote has no exclusivity from a geographical point of view.

''You are either telepathic, that you speak for people across the globe without speaking to them, or you based your comment on concrete data. Which is it?''

Neither of the two. Anecdotal evidence coming from anyone in a similar flying situation describes thus far that it happens; you will note Juan said people told him as much. And you should be well aware of this anecdotal position because you've used it yourself in making disparaging comments about Arabs awhile back talking to another poster (who is virulent at it by the way). Plus you will take note I agreed to this specific anecdote in that same thread. Now if you ask me for it I will tell you no, I don't have it at my disposal. But you said it. You used anecdotal comments to support something you say doesn't exist while talking to me. With this in mind then how is it you know what you said about Arabs to be true? Is your anecdotal response, at the time, but now refreshed by me to show your usage anecdotally, scientific? And by now you should see what I mean by my Morgan comment and how it relates peripherally to him asking Juan to defend his inappropriate comment about Arabs and his (Piers) lack of a logical position to defend his religiosity from a moral standpoint.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |

posted 28. October 201110:37 PM
I happened to recall this incident and googled it.

THE ECONOMIST

Business travel

Flying while Muslim

Delayed by bigotry?

May 8th 2011, 23:45 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, DC

ON FRIDAY, passengers on an Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight from Memphis to Charlotte were delayed for two hours and twenty minutes because their flight had two Muslim men on board and, if you believe the men's story, because the pilot was a bigot. The two Muslim passengers, Masudur Rahman and Mohamed Zaghloul, were headed to a conference on anti-Muslim prejudice when they were booted off the flight after being told the pilot refused to fly with them on board. Both men had cleared security (they actually cleared it twice: they were also screened at the gate) and the flight was already on the runway when the pilot announced he was returning to the gate. After the pilot taxied back to the gate, the men submitted to another round of screening, which found nothing. But the pilot still didn't want to fly with the two men on board, and left without them—more than two hours behind schedule. CNN reported that the pilot claimed that some passengers were uncomfortable with the men, but there's no other evidence of that. Mr Rahman blames the pilot: After [the third] security check, [Mr Rahman] said a Delta employee at the gate informed him that the pilot of the flight would not allow him on board. He says the employees in the airport were very apologetic—even angry—and said they tried repeatedly to convince the pilot that he was wrong. Rahman said he was even told that the gate agents asked the passengers if they felt uncomfortable about the two Muslim men, and reported back to the pilot that the people on board the plane were not concerned.

It is of course possible that Messrs. Rahman and Zaghloul are making this whole thing up, or that they are in fact dangerous terrorists who have disguised themselves as a university professor and an Imam. Maybe they even cooked up the whole story as a publicity stunt to promote their anti-Muslim prejudice conference! But last time I checked, ASA commuter flights between Memphis and Charlotte weren't major terrorist targets, and not every Muslim man with a beard and a robe is a terrorist. Also, I'm fairly confident that people who are irrationally paranoid and bigoted about Muslims really do exist. (If I were one of the other passengers on that flight, I would be pretty annoyed if it turned out that someone else's prejudices made me two and a half hours late.)

I'm going to go ahead and bet that prejudice played a role in this incident. The airline, the US attorney's office, and the US Justice Department are all investigating, and if the facts they turn up reveal something else, I'll be happy to eat some humble pie.

Here it is 6 months later and no resolution. SAY WHAT. Juan was fired in a few days or less. Maybe the airline fired the pilot with no fanfare. Then again he may still be flying to his hearts content.

Acccording to Williams on the Morgan interview (transcript): ''Excuse me. But there were no standards in place at NPR at the time that would have justified such an action.''

You will take note Morgan has an issue with Fox's right wing attitude and Juan's appearance there: noted by Morgan in the interview. So this means Morgan is a left-winger. So what we have on this issue is a stalemate. By the way, I have no use for right-wingers nor left-wingers. This includes O'reilly and Morgan, respectively. It's easier to see both positions from the middle; it's a natural state of affairs for me. That's the way it is.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |

Yes, it is quite clear, going on a couple of posts now, that I did in fact tell you I haven't seen the entire interview; now you're making a secret of it, that is, you're explaining how you see it and basing it on ''my not seeing the entire interview. Yeah buddy, right on time ain't you.

Maybe you should spend time watching the interview first, before arguing with people over the internet about something you are clearly clueless about, don't you think?

quote:On Firing Williams

''It's not for me to agree with. It's the only logical conclusion, because his comment was racist and he could not defend it. This interview proved that.'

No it isn't the only logical conclusion.

Then let's test what you find logical about his comment. Juan could not defend it; maybe, you can pull off a miracle and do what the culprit himself couldn't do:

What is logical about being afraid to be around people in "Muslim garb", knowing full well that all implicated terrorists have been seen in "western garb"?

Go!

quote:What's illogical is your position that Juan can be fired from a publically funded outfit based on a prejudicial and inappropriate comment he made on national television and all done within a few days or less.

What's illogical about not tolerating racism in work place?

As you said, the organization is *publically* funded, at least in part. "Public" is the anti-thesis of racism.

And being publicly funded, does not absolve an organization from firing people who break ethic protocols. Not to leave out: The running of the organization is undertaken by trained and paid full-time and part-time employees of the organization, not the public. It's not a lawless wasteland, on the account that its "publicly funded". Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

Anecdotal comments require no corroboration from a scientific standpoint; that's why it's anecdotal; people make comments. Opinionated comments require what? An explanation for an opinion? Really. If the opinion is stated as such wherein lies the need to explain it since it's already been stated as such?

In other words, your picking populations around th globe and ascribing an ideology to them is just your BS to justify the unjustifiable.

quote:No, not a large chunk, just the tens of thousands who fly and some of them will say what Juan did. You should be reminded that anecdote has no exclusivity from a geographical point of view.

Revising history, are we? What you wrote earlier:

I said others around the globe; this will include African-Americans, continental Africans, Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, and all the rest, who may well see it that way and who do fly for a variety of reasons. - Grumman

quote:You used anecdotal comments to support something you say doesn't exist while talking to me.

You must have me confused with somebody else.

I never use "anecdotes" as evidence of anything. However, I may sometimes use an "anecdote" to politely get my point across to not very bright posters every now and then, without having to outright call them "stupid"...if you get my drift.

quote:With this in mind then how is it you know what you said about Arabs to be true?

One: You are drifting off-topic. This is not about me, as the OP sets forth, this is specifically about the CNN interview and how Juan handled himself. Get with the program.

Two: You are not going to get off apologizing for Juan's own actions by accusing somebody else of bad behavior, namely using "my supposed actions" as "evidence". It's illogical.

Three: I generally don't make unsupported blanket statements that I'm not prepared to back up. If at any point I make disparaging comment about a particular group, it is usually intended as an insult and retaliation at a disparaging opponent. To use that to apologize for Juan is just plainly intellectually destitute.

Four: As a professional TV, online or on the air journalist, academic, scientist, businessman or government official, I would not make such disparaging blanket statements in a place of work.

All this aside, your philosophy can be equated to saying that if someone murdered another, then your defense to and excuse for this murder, would be to merely point out that "others have committed murder". Aren't you glad you are not a lawyer?

quote:And by now you should see what I mean by my Morgan comment and how it relates peripherally to him asking Juan to defend his inappropriate comment about Arabs and his (Piers) lack of a logical position to defend his religiosity from a moral standpoint.

To put it bluntly, your "point" is stupid.

Juan is supposed to be a professional journalist. News organizations have a responsibility to inform the public not dumb them down. Sadly, the U.S and 'western' big corp news concerns exist to do the latter.
Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

As gramps said, it was "his truth". Its something he subjectively feels, like pizza over chicken etc. Its not logical you jackass! LOL! Maybe he is anti-Muslim, or maybe he is brainwashed by western media to "fear" Muslims. Who knows, its how he feels. His nervousness could be explained by the fact that expressing your true feelings is a no-no in today's multicultural postmodern era.

Dont bother to reply, faggot, this is all the time you will get form me. hehehehe
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |

posted 29. October 201111:42 AMWho knows, its how he feels. His nervousness could be explained by the fact that expressing your true feelings is a no-no in today's multicultural postmodern era.

So, you didn't watch the interview either, did you?

Let me set you straight...notwithstanding that this thing may be too intellectually heavy for you right now, given your above-mentioned breakdown:

Juan was not "nervous" when he made the comments on O'Reilly Factor.

Juan has not been this "nervous" through his long run on TV appearance.

He was not "nervous" at the beginning of the Morgan interview, when he hyper-actively jumped straightaway into mouthing off on about "PC in media" as his main line of defense.

Guess when this "nervousness" that you apologetically speak of starts?

Yep, when he gets probed on identifying the rational basis of his racist words, in the way he should have been all along.
Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

You clearly haven't reached the maturity or the experienced intuition of the real world. Not surprising, since you spend all of your time on the internet cursing people you don't know, instead of getting an education, and going out into the real world.

Of course his comment is illogical. It's hardly a crime to be stupid, although sometimes one wonders if it should, LOL. That's besides the point.

Juan is a professional TV commentator. He should strive at making illogical comments to a minimum as possible. And more importantly, avoid making racist comments.

Hence, as set forth in the OP:

Piers even went as far as to tell him that NPR, where Juan was then working, must have had a low standard, because if Piers himself was to make the same comments that Juan did on Fox news, then he was pretty confident that CNN would fire him.

Partaking of racism by any employee against another or customer is ground for termination in work place. Get a clue, anguish of being, and get a job in the real world, if you are to learn anything.
Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

Dont bother to reply, faggot, this is all the time you will get form me. hehehehe

So, we both then agree that you should make yourself as scarce as possible. It's more than enough time to point out that I've drawn your interest, or else you wouldn't have bothered interjecting in the first place.

posted 29. October 201101:58 PM
Explorer:''Maybe you should spend time watching the interview first, before arguing with people over the internet about something you are clearly clueless about, don't you think?''Yet more evidence of your mismanaging your comprehension. You really are slow.

''Then let's test what you find logical about his comment. Juan could not defend it; maybe, you can pull off a miracle and do what the culprit himself couldn't do:

What is logical about being afraid to be around people in "Muslim garb", knowing full well that all implicated terrorists have been seen in "western garb"?''

You will recall Juan said after the 9/11 climate manifested itself that is, was, his motivation for saying what he did. And now, after my reading the *transcripts*, *transcripts*, of the entire interview, and you saw this in my post above, you're still wandering around trying to make sense of something from a new angle of attack. That's rich Explorer. Other than your actually viewing the video and I didn't, then that left me to trust you, now erroneouly, in filling in Juan's actual visible movements and behavior... from the transcripts. I've seen Juan speak animatedly on television; other journalists have done the same. What's wrong with that. Do you understand what I just said? Juan defended his position from his viewpoint. What is so hard for you to see about this except you don't agree with it? Yet you consider yourself objective. Bullshit, you're not objective. You're just like me and everyone else when they want to comment on something when they have a different viewpoint. I told you weeks ago you had subjectivity stamped on your forehead for everyone to see and it's still on display. Are you that totally out of touch with reality that you can so easily render yourself impotent in the critical thinking department. What's wrong with you.

''What's illogical about not tolerating racism in work place?''

It sure would help you if you can distinguish between some words you use. Tell me why Juan's innappropriate comment on national television is racial instead of prejudice. Hint: did Juan's comment actually prevent Muslims from getting on a plane? Also be aware of the current 'Economist.' link I brought to your attention--an attention by the way you should be considering.

''As you said, the organization is *publically* funded, at least in part. "Public" is the anti-thesis of racism.''

The public is the antithesis of racism? Really? Where did you learn this? Did you get this drilled into your head by a professor somewhere on this planet. Are you saying there would be no racism without the public involved? Public equals racism, racism equals public. Are you saying the two are mutually exclusive?

''And being publicly funded, does not absolve an organization from firing people who break ethic protocols. Not to leave out: The running of the organization is undertaken by trained and paid full-time and part-time employees of the organization, not the public.''

You already forgot what I said Juan said haven't you. Would you like me to prove to you again Juan said NPR had no protocols in place? And what about the public who is against censoring what Juan said about Muslims. Since the station is partially funded by taxpayers is it okay for the station to ignore that section of non-censorship to uphold the politically correct censorship taxpayers. Who decides on this issue. Lordy I hope it ain't you.

''In other words, your picking populations around th globe and ascribing an ideology to them is just your BS to justify the unjustifiable.

Now you have me ascribing an ideology to people around the globe instead of anecdotal comments. Just ain't no let up with you is there.

I said:

No, not a large chunk, just the tens of thousands who fly and some of them will say what Juan did. You should be reminded that anecdote has no exclusivity from a geographical point of view.

Your response is:

''Revising history, are we? What you wrote earlier:

I said others around the globe; this will include African-Americans, continental Africans, Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, and all the rest, who may well see it that way and who do fly for a variety of reasons. - Grumman

Tens of thousands of people around the world fly each day, including some who are mentioned above. Anecdotal information says some will say it. What's imaginative is your denying people won't say it given the state of aggravation with some parties.

''I never use "anecdotes" as evidence of anything. However, I may sometimes use an "anecdote" to politely get my point across to not very bright posters every now and then, without having to outright call them "stupid"...if you get my drift.''

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head with the stupid comment. Didn't I suggest to you a few posts ago that dealing with you reduces me to that state of affairs. You got it goin' own brother.

''I generally don't make unsupported blanket statements that I'm not prepared to back up. If at any point I make disparaging comment about a particular group, it is usually intended as an insult and retaliation at a disparaging opponent.''

Damn Explorer you can't even make sense of your own argument. So, the individual, presumably that is, in contest with you is, well, an individual. But it's okay to insult the entire group because of the individual who may be a part of that group? Keep own talkin' my man. I hear you loud and clear. Juan Williams is laughing his ass off at you. It's a wonder you don't pass out from that one.

''As a professional TV, online or on the air journalist, academic, scientist, businessman or government official, I would not make such disparaging blanket statements in a place of work.''

Assuming you are one of those listed are you suggesting that once you leave the workplace all bets are off?

''All this aside, your philosophy can be equated to saying that if someone murdered another, then your defense to and excuse for this murder, would be to merely point out that "others have committed murder". Aren't you glad you are not a lawyer?''

Yet more evidence of your mismanaging your comprehension. You really are slow.

You have it upside down. A stupid person is someone who argues with people on what he/she has no first-hand knowledge of, kinda like you.

You are harping on about a video you've never watched.

quote:

''Then let's test what you find logical about his comment. Juan could not defend it; maybe, you can pull off a miracle and do what the culprit himself couldn't do:

What is logical about being afraid to be around people in "Muslim garb", knowing full well that all implicated terrorists have been seen in "western garb"?''

You will recall Juan said after the 9/11 climate manifested itself that is, was, his motivation for saying what he did. And now, after my reading the *transcripts*, *transcripts*, of the entire interview, and you saw this in my post above, you're still wandering around trying to make sense of something from a new angle of attack.

I'm convinced now more than ever that English must definitely not be your primary language. What does the question above ask you? Hint: include the highlighted.

quote:That's rich Explorer. Other than your actually viewing the video and I didn't, then that left me to trust you, now erroneouly, in filling in Juan's actual visible movements and behavior... from the transcripts.

This is idiotic. You've just confessed about not having seen the video, despite being argumentative about it, and then jump onto to saying I'm wrong on something you haven't seen. How does that work, my friend?

What is so hard for you to see about this except you don't agree with it? Yet you consider yourself objective.

I am objective. I asked a question from an objective standpoint. And you simply answered with cursing. The latter is what's not objective; it's emotionalism.

quote: Bullshit, you're not objective. You're just like me and everyone else when they want to comment on something when they have a different viewpoint. I told you weeks ago you had subjectivity stamped on your forehead for everyone to see and it's still on display. Are you that totally out of touch with reality that you can so easily render yourself impotent in the critical thinking department.

You are more emotional than most women I've met. Not a single word above is tangible, but all the same we can test your accusations: What from me, constitutes "totally out of touch with reality" and why?

quote:What's wrong with you.

This an odd question, considering that it is you who is nattering about something you haven't watched.
Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Grumman:Tell me why Juan's innappropriate comment on national television is racial instead of prejudice.

I already did, numerous times above. You are just too thick to get it. Read up on previous postings.

quote:''As you said, the organization is *publically* funded, at least in part. "Public" is the anti-thesis of racism.''

The public is the antithesis of racism? Really? Where did you learn this?

It's called common sense. You could use one once in a while. The public is all encompassing. Racism is the stoking of division of the public based on identity politics. This is supposed to be a no-brainer, old man.

quote:You already forgot what I said Juan said haven't you. Would you like me to prove to you again Juan said NPR had no protocols in place?

Only an idiot will think that in this day and age, racism is tolerated in a place of work. Well, apparently, Juan and yourself did not get the memo. There was a protocol after all: racism is not tolerated in the organization.

quote:And what about the public who is against censoring what Juan said about Muslims.

Along that dumb line, you might as well as ask what about the people who were for the continuation of Jim Crow?
Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Grumman:Who decides on this issue. Lordy I hope it ain't you.

The organization (its management) decides it, silly. I already schooled you on this, but of course, you were not listening. Emotionalism took over thinking.

quote:Now you have me ascribing an ideology to people around the globe instead of anecdotal comments. Just ain't no let up with you is there.

You wrote:

Other than the fact Juan Williams made the politically incorrect comment on television, that is his truth--and a lot of others around the world see it that way. - by grums

And of course, upon pressing you to identify these "a lot of others", you proceeded to name populations around the globe. Apparently, judging by this, you don't know what an anecdote is either.

You offered a fictitious account that you could not back up. Plain and simple.

quote:''I never use "anecdotes" as evidence of anything. However, I may sometimes use an "anecdote" to politely get my point across to not very bright posters every now and then, without having to outright call them "stupid"...if you get my drift.''

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head with the stupid comment.

The problem is, your claim is not an anecdote. You are stupid for thinking that anyone else would see it as such, other than an attempt at revisionism.

quote:Damn Explorer you can't even make sense of your own argument. So, the individual, presumably that is, in contest with you is, well, an individual. But it's okay to insult the entire group because of the individual who may be a part of that group? Keep own talkin' my man. I hear you loud and clear. Juan Williams is laughing his ass off at you. It's a wonder you don't pass out from that one.

You are daydreaming. I didn't say it was okay to disparage an entire group of people; you said that. I said I retaliated in kind, with an insult. An insult is what it is; it is not meant to be okay. But what's foolish, is for you to excuse Juan's behavior, on the account of my supposed bad behavior.

quote:Assuming you are one of those listed are you suggesting that once you leave the workplace all bets are off?

I cannot control what one does in their own privacy. In a work place, some standards and class is expected, even if not always written or spoken out loud for a dummy.

I will say this: Some have been known to be fired for what they said in their own privacy in social networks like Facebook, when members of management got the word. A school teacher comes to mind. Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:[QB] "I told you weeks ago you had subjectivity stamped on your forehead"

that aint all he has stamped on his forehead. lol

"And what about the public who is against censoring what Juan said about Muslims."

they dont count as "public" for Jewboy. lol

(oh i didnt see this one!)"I generally don't make unsupported blanket statements that I'm not prepared to back up."

you mean like your lucy dawidowiz statement? hahahaha

So, on top of being an emotional weakling, you have proven yourself to be a heck of a petty liar, have you. I thought you were making yourself scarce. Maybe even you don't trust you? Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |

posted 30. October 201101:28 PM''knowing full well that all implicated terrorists have been seen in "western garb"

...and this means what exactly, from your position? Since Juan didn't mention this western clothing and Juan made the comment about Muslims in general in Muslim garb whay are you of the mind that a Muslim wearing western clothing would be exempt from Juan's inappropriate comments even though he didn't specifically say it? He knew full well terrorists do in fact blend in. After all you did say he's supposed to be a responsible journalist (what ever that means to the many thousands of people around the globe who may take issue with that). Where are you going with this not very refreshing look at this issue? Would it make you feel better about yourself if Williams had said if they were naked it wouldn't make any difference?

Explorer you are making this stuff hard to get a hold on. For example the video. Your main aggravation with the reposting seems to be I haven't seen it. My not having seen it in its entirety, other than what *your* shortened link shows, says nothing for the content of what we're discussing here other than Juan's actions. I pointed out to you awhile back that all that remains is for me to *physically see Juan's actions*. That's all that remains now--not the transcripts of what Juan said-- just his *actions.* Yet, once I do see his actions somewhere down the line is this suppose to reveal some heretofore unknown and revelatory position you have after I told you I read the transcripts? Surely you can't be separating his actions from the transcripts... transcripts I've already read. Now if Williams jumped on the table and confronted Morgan then yes he would have lost control. Yet that still wouldn't address Juan's inappropriate comments about Muslims.

Your contention from the beginning of your topic has been Juan losing control of himself after Morgan confronted him with the issue about his comments. Juan, from what the transcripts tell me, didn't lose anything. Did Williams get on his knees and say ''massa Piers, I's sho' 'nuff sorry 'bout my comments. Unless and until you can demonstrate Juan jumping on a table punching Morgan, throwing water on him *intentionally* then you have jack s..t to discuss about anybody losing control. You need to stick to the inapproriate comments he made and deal with it. By the way your Jim Crow *was racism.*: a direct result of prejudice.

Finally, you 've ignored the Economist blog material long enough. If you juxtapose Juan's comments with the pilot's actions what did Juan deprive a Muslim of? Was Juan's comment racial? Was the airline pilot's action prejudicial? Will you understand the difference between the deliberate mismatching I did? We'll see.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |

posted 31. October 201105:45 AM
^Pointless rambling to evade your duty. Your duty was to answer the complete question you expediently hacked that highlighted bit from, on top of that ramble. This is a question Juan failed to coherently and objectively answer in the interview, and you have done the same (i.e. you've failed). Posts: 7516 | From: L‘un et seulement terrain de Bennu-Ausar | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |